Sorry, I keep missing posts. So, my issue specifically was that you start by sort of defending the idea that Sky had, that it was a random/joke vote. That in itself is fine. But you then say "but I don't know if it's in character for Sky because I don't know them". To me, that reads as leaving open the possibility that you could pivot against Sky regarding the vote, if for example it was established that Sky had never done this before.
Is it weak? Of course. The purpose is mostly to have a baseline to which we can discuss from. I can see your defence, we can talk, maybe that read develops and reverses. Being concerned about it being "OMGUS" or whatever is pretty weird to me, because OMGUS only really applies if you were retaliating against me because I was coming at you, not for dismissing a fairly weak argument. When I factor in you becoming a bit more emboldened when Silent contests my reasoning, then I feel like I have more to work with.
My comment, to address the irony part, was more that there were a good 13 to 15 pages where people were still discussing whether Sky originally made a joke vote or not. Of course she did, it was cut and dry.
said: